This is an electronic reprint of the original article.This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

This material is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, and duplication or sale of all or part of any of the repository collections is not permitted, except that material may be duplicated by you for your research use or educational purposes in electronic or print form. You must obtain permission for any other use. Electronic or print copies may not be offered, whether for sale or otherwise to anyone who is not an authorised user.

Sairanen, Marjo; Rinne, Mikael; Selonen, O.A review of dust emission dispersions in rock aggregate and natural stone quarries

Published in:INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MINING, RECLAMATION AND ENVIRONMENT

DOI:10.1080/17480930.2016.1271385

Published: 01/01/2018

Document VersionPeer reviewed version

Please cite the original version:Sairanen, M., Rinne, M., & Selonen, O. (2018). A review of dust emission dispersions in rock aggregate andnatural stone quarries. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MINING, RECLAMATION AND ENVIRONMENT, 32(3),1-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/17480930.2016.1271385

A review of dust emission dispersions in rock aggregate and natural

stone quarries

Fugitive dust constitutes one of the most severe environmental problems in

quarries because it escapes capture. This review aims to provide overview of dust

concentration caused by quarrying by synthesizing the current knowledge. The

25 studies explored here were conducted in open-pit quarries or mines. Three

main dust sources surfaced from the studies: drilling, crushing and hauling.

Analysis revealed a range of dust concentrations caused by different quarrying

operations. Crushing was the most significant dust source, while drilling caused

the highest variation. Dust concentration decrease was observed with increasing

distance, but the retention was incoherent due to local dust sources.

Keywords: dust; drilling; crushing; hauling; open-pit quarry

1. Introduction

Open-pit quarrying constitutes a core industry in many countries. Recycling,

compensatory materials and the related technology have helped replace only a minority

of the total consumption of the rock material [1]. Significant fugitive dust emissions

appear when producing different types of rock products, such as aggregates in open-pit

quarries. Fugitive dust refers to dust derived from indefinite sources or from more than

one source [2]. These emissions can cause environmental, health, safety and operational

effects mainly impacting the personnel of the quarry site but also the environment and

community around the quarry. Inside the quarry, problems are generally related to

labour safety and outside to adverse environmental impacts [3], like hygiene problems

to buildings, constructions and vegetation [e.g. 4].

The United States Environmental Protection Agency [5] categorizes dust

emission sources in open-pit quarries into process and fugitive dust sources. Process

source emissions can be captured and subsequently controlled, e.g. through crushing

inside a baghouse. Fugitive dust sources involve the re-entrainment of settled dust by

wind or machine movement, causing the dust to arise from the mechanical disturbance

of granular material exposed to the air. Emissions from process sources should be

considered fugitive unless the sources are contained in an enclosure with a forced-air

vent or stack [5]. Fugitive dust poses one of the major problems in quarries because it is

generated from unconfirmed sources, like quarry area and transportation, and it escapes

capture [2].

Dust formation and spreading during open-pit quarrying are insufficiently

explored environmental discomforts. The demand for producer-level environmental

knowledge has increased and public authorities expect more detailed reports on

environmental effects. Determining the concentration level and distance that the dust

spreads, are essential when evaluating environmental effects.

The aim of this article is to provide a systematic overview of the dust

concentration caused by open-pit quarrying, by synthesizing the current knowledge.

Knowledge gaps, which may be addressed through further research, are identified. The

essential terms are defined and the measurement methods and modelling are briefly

introduced. The previous studies of dust measurement in the open-pit quarries and in

ambient environment (surrounding the quarry boundary) are reviewed. The results are

divided according to the quarrying process and dust concentration decreasing with

increasing distance is evaluated. Finally the findings are presented on dust emission

factors for different quarrying processes and the results from the different studies and

generalization of the results is discussed. The work mostly excludes measurements

concentrating on the related health effects. This review gathers international results

concerning dust formation during open-pit quarrying and in addition provides data from

the Finnish national studies [e.g. 6,7] which are presented internationally for the first

time.

1.1 Quarrying processes

Natural stone quarries, hereafter stone quarries, produce stone blocks, which are

detached from the bedrock by drilling, blasting, sawing or wedging. The aim is to

detach stone blocks and the bedrock as intact as possible from the excavation without

causing damage [8]. Drilling generates the majority of the dust formed in the processes

employed in stone quarries [7,9].

Rock aggregate quarries, hereafter aggregate quarries, produce different-sized

aggregates via crushing and sieving [10]. By drilling and blasting, the rock material is

detached from the bedrock to fit in a crusher feeding bin. Larger rocks are fragmented

with a hydraulic impact hammer before crushing. In aggregate quarries, the most dust-

generating process is crushing and sieving. The drilling and blasting also causes dust

emissions, but their impact is usually assumed insignificant compared to the most

important dust-generating crushing and sieving [2].

Mining includes processes similar to aggregate quarries: drilling, blasting,

hydraulic impact hammering, crushing and sieving. In some mines, e.g. in coal mines,

the material is sheared from the parent rock. The crushed or sheared material continues

in the process to the refiners, where the rock material is grinded and pulverized for the

further procedures. Refiners are closed systems, in which dust formation is negligible in

terms of environmental effects. The rest of the mining processes after pulverization

include chemical phases, which form minor amounts of dust [11].

Some quarries follow different processes in their operations, but the drilling,

blasting, hydraulic impact hammering and crushing are commonly employed with hard

stone material, like granite. In quarrying softer rocks like sandstone, shearers or sawing

are adopted to gain fragmented rock material or stone blocks.

Drilling produces dust when a drilling stem intrudes to the rock, for which

reason drills are usually equipped with dry dust collection systems [9] in open-pit

quarries. Underground mining employs wet suppression for dust prevention during the

drilling [12].

During the crushing, a jaw or a cone movement triggers rock fragmentation by

inducing a compressive stress on the material in the crusher. Rock fragmentation at

localized high pressure during grain-jaw/cone and grain-grain contact contributes to the

majority of the dust particles [13]. Dust formed during the crushing is commonly

controlled with encapsulation or housing and water sprays.

All quarries include hauling of raw material and products. According to Reed

[14], hauling produces significant amounts of dust (even 80-90%) in open-pit quarries.

Kissell [12] reported that haul road dust is mainly formed during other processes in the

quarry (e.g. crushing) and the hauling re-entrains the dust in the air. Hauling causes air

flow, which lifts dust into the air. Dust is produced during the hauling due to the grain-

grain pressure from the vehicles. Common dust prevention techniques for haul road dust

include water or other water application, like salts and surfactants. Also soil cements,

bitumens, films and their combinations are applicable to haul roads dust control [12].

1.2 Dust properties and behaviour

Dust is a generic term describing fine, solid particles which settle out under their own

weight, but may remain suspended for some time [2,15,16]. The dispersion of

suspended particles depends on the capacity of the dust particles to remain airborne,

influenced by factors such as weight of particles, inter-particle forces and drag, and lift

and movement imparted by the flow of air on the particles [15].

Dust particle size is the most frequently applied categorization property.

Aerodynamic diameter is a commonly applied concept when defining the size of a dust

particle. The diameter refers to a spherical particle with the density of 1000 kg/m3 that

has the same settling velocity as the particle in question [15]. PM generally refers to

particulate matter. PM10 and PM2.5 are defined as PM with an aerodynamic diameter no

greater than 10 µm and 2.5 µm, respectively. According to US EPA [17], the total

suspended particles (TSP) size range varies from 10 µm to 100 µm, but a 30-µm

aerodynamic diameter is commonly applied. Suspended particulate (SP) or suspended

particulate matter (SPM) is defined as particles with an aerodynamic diameter of 30 µm

or less and is often qualified as equal to TSP. Inhalable particulate (IP) includes

particles with an aerodynamic diameter of 15 µm or less. PM2.5 is referred to as fine

particles or fine particulate (FP) [17]. Coarse particles refer to PM10 or larger particles.

Inhalable particulate fraction ends up in the nose or mouth through breathing,

thoracic particulate fraction penetrates the head airways and enters the lung, and

respirable particulate fraction penetrates beyond the terminal bronchioles into the gas-

exchange region of the lungs [18]. Respirable fraction surrogates as alveolian fraction.

Respirable or alveolian fraction is regarded approximately as PM2.5, thoracic fraction as

PM10, and inhalable fraction as TSP [15].

According to US EPA [5], the variables affecting dust properties and behaviour

are

(1) material properties (including rock type, crusher feed size and distribution,

moisture content),

(2) process factors (including process throughput rate, type of equipment and

process practices, size reduction rate, fines content) and

(3) environmental factors including topography and climate.

Particle size, shape, chemical composition, mass concentration and density

affect the behaviour of dust [15].

Belardi et al. [13] observed that the aerodynamic diameters of dust particles are

independent of the crusher operating conditions. The maximum aerodynamic diameter

of the particles formed during crushing was about 70-80 µm [13]. This is in accordance

with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister England [19], stating that crushing

produces mainly coarse particles (>30 µm), which settle near, within 100 m of the dust

source. Intermediate-sized particles (10-30 µm) are likely to travel up to 200-500 m.

Smaller particles from quarries (less than 10 µm) represent a small proportion of dust

and are deposited slowly [19].

Dust around quarries may resemble the mineralogical properties of the bedrock

[3,20], but it is not identical since different minerals break down or are removed at

different rates due to the quarrying processes [e.g. 2,18]. The relative proportions of

minerals in road aggregates differed compared to those in the PM10, produced during

the hauling. Heterogeneities were observed in quartz and alkali feldspar concentrations

of the PM10 [10,21].

Besides particle size, dust concentration decrease (i.e. dust retention) depends on

the prevalent weather conditions. Wind speed and direction are essential. When wind

speed remains under 1 m/s, the dilution and dispersion are minimal [6]. Smaller

particles remain airborne longer, deposit slowly and spread wider, while larger particles

deposit more quickly [19]. Rainfall increases dust removal from the air and the removal

is more pronounced to larger particles [15]. Also, increase in relative humidity has been

observed to decrease the dust concentration in the air [20].

In addition to environmental effects, dust exposure can be associated with

serious health risks and several epidemiological studies have reported adverse health

effects of exposure airborne particulate matter [e.g. 22]. Exposure to quarry dust has

reported to have a detrimental effect on lung function [23,24]. The size of particles is

directly linked to the potential to cause health problems. Particles below10 µm in

diameter pose the greatest problems when penetrating into lungs, and even into

bloodstream [25]. Both coarse and fine particle exposures have been positively

associated with mortality, but exposure to smaller particles has stronger impacts on

health than exposure to larger particles [26]. Adverse health effects are dependent on

both exposure concentrations and length of exposure, and long-term exposures have

larger, more persistent cumulative effects than short-term exposures [22,23]. Dust-

related health effects include pneumoconiosis, cancer, systemic poisoning, hard metal

disease, irritation and inflammatory lung injuries, allergic responses (including asthma

and allergic alveolitis), infection and effects on the skin [18].

1.3 Measurements and modelling

Dust measurements are commonly conducted for regulatory purposes to ensure

adequately controlled exposure. Critical parameters in dust measurements in open pit

quarries include sampling location, time of the measurement and climatic factors like

wind speed and direction, temperature and moisture [2]. In addition, important factors in

dust measurements comprise sampling duration, sampling and analytical end methods

(e.g. weighing), data handling and analysis, and supplementary data collection [27].

Five typical types of samples, according to Hinds [15], include source, ambient

and background samples, occupational health-related samples and real-time dust

measurements. Source samples measure dust concentrations deriving from the source

emissions. Ambient samples aim at representing the concentrations in ambient

environments caused by the dust source. Background samples measure the contribution

of other sources to dust levels. Real-time dust measurements determine a dust profile

over a set time period [15].

Petavratzi et al. [2] gathered common monitoring techniques from UK

Environment Agency’s [27] and US EPA’s [28] documents and classified the

techniques into seven categories:

(1) Filter paper technique,

(2) Particulate sampling trains,

(3) Automatic paper tape instruments,

(4) Continuous microbalance instruments,

(5) Light scattering systems,

(6) Size selective techniques and

(7) Deposit gauges.

Appendix A applies this categorization while presenting dust measurements

results in detail.

Dust monitoring techniques 1-6 constitute active techniques. According to

Mineral Industry Research Organization [29], active techniques draw volumes of air for

a designated time period to measure the amount (particle concentration and mass) and

type of dust (particle size fraction) suspended in the air. Measurement results are

concentrations; a measure of the amount of substance contained per unit of volume.

Deposit gauges represent passive techniques based on the principle that coarse particles

suspended in the air fall out either under the influence of gravity (dry deposition) or in

contact with water droplets (wet deposition) [29]. Besides measurements, dust load in

the environment can be evaluated via calculation with emission factors. An emission

factor is a representative value that relates the quantity of a pollutant released to the

atmosphere with an activity associated with the release of that pollutant [30], for

example kilograms of dust for every processed ton.

Modelling dust concentration is also commonly related to regulatory purposes

and environmental permitting. There are several different commercial and non-

commercial models available, which have been reviewed by Holmes and Morawska

[31]. Dispersion modelling uses mathematical equations, describing the atmosphere,

dispersion and processes within the dust plume, to calculate concentrations at various

locations. The suitability of the models to particle dispersion modelling depends on the

nature of the concentration desired. Factors affecting the choice of the model include

the complexity of the environment, the dimensions of the model, the nature of the

particle source, the computing power and time that is required and the accuracy and

time-scale of the calculated concentrations desired [31]. However, US EPA has listed

preferred models, which are AERMOD and CALPUFF Modelling Systems, BLP;

CALIN3, CAL3QHC/CAL3QHCR, CTDMPLUS and OCD [32]. Modelling dust

concentration produced during open-pit quarrying has revealed, that site-specific

meteorological conditions and both in-pit and surrounding terrain have strong influence

on the predicted dust dispersion [e.g. 33-36]. Characterization of the dust emission

source is essential, because mischaracterization of a source can impact modelled

concentrations by an order of magnitude [37]. Also, some models are reported to

perform more accurately than others, when the modelling has been compared to the

measured concentrations near open-pit quarries [e.g. 36,38].

In-pit terrain causes re-circulatory airflows, which create micro climates within

the quarry. It is evaluated, that between 30-70% of the fugitive dust emissions from

quarrying activities retain within the quarry boundary [e.g. 34,35,37]. Location of the

dust source in relation to the quarry benches and wind direction have been noticed to

have an effect on dust dispersion [e.g. 33,34,39] and modelling has been used to

develop barriers for reducing dust emissions [e.g. 39,40].

2. Reviewed studies

This review focuses on environmental effects and fugitive dust near or inside open-pit

quarries. Measurements concentrating on health effects are largely excluded. The dust

measurements cover the quarry area and/or the ambient environment or measurements

concentrated on certain quarrying processes (e.g. drilling). The measurements included

in this review applied stationary measurement locations. Personal sampling studies

related to health effects were excluded.

A total of twenty five studies were reviewed. The results are reported via the

main dust-producing process. Three different main dust sources are reported here:

drilling, crushing and hauling. Twenty one studies had emphasis on one of these three

main dust sources. Three studies indicated two different main dust sources. Junttila et

al. [41] and Bada et al. [42] acquired results from drilling and crushing, and Chang et al.

[43] from crushing and hauling. Degan et al. [44] included all three dust sources in their

research. Some studies included other dust sources, e.g.storage piles. According to

previous studies, they yield a minor contribution to dust concentration [2] and are

excluded from the results reported here. The reviewed studies are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Reviewed studies according to the main dust sources

Dust was measured with several different measuring techniques and setups. The

majority of the studies conducted measurements at source, ambient and background

measuring stations. The definitions for measuring stations differed between studies. The

source station is typically located inside the quarry or within few tens of meters from it,

but a several-hundred-meter distance was also used. Ambient stations located farther

away from the quarry compared to the source measuring stations, typically over a

hundred-meter distance. The background station was located at the upwind direction

from the quarry and usually at a long (kilometres’) distance. Dust concentration and

deposition measurement results are summarized in Appendix A. The results and

measurement setups are reported here with the same accuracy as in the original studies.

When determining dust mass concentration decreasing with increasing distance,

exponential dust retention curves were adopted due to the higher regression coefficient

(R2) values compared to linear retention regression coefficient. The dust retention

curves were defined with Microsoft Excel and applied for calculating the distance in

which the background concentration was achieved.

2.1 Dust formed during the drilling, crushing and hauling

The drilling studies gained mass concentrations ranging several orders of magnitude.

Studies made at 2000s frequently reported lower source mass concentrations compared

to measurements made in 1990s. Values from recent measurements varies

approximately from 100 to 1000 µg TSP/m3 and from 60 to 700 µg PM10/m3 [6,7,9;42].

Source mass concentration measured at 1990s varies from 500 up to 95,000 µg TSP/m3

[41,45]. However, some exceptions appeared. Golbabaei et al. [46] gained mass

concentrations similar to the highest TSP concentrations observed at 1990s,

approximately from 80,000 to 110,000 µg TSP/m3. Olusegun et al. [47] and Degan et al.

[44] gained higher PM10 concentrations compared to other studies made at 2000s. PM10

mass concentrations were over 15,000 µg/m3 and approximately 5000 µg/m3,

respectively.

According to Organiscak and Page [45], dust concentration decreases

significantly within tens of meters from the drill, being approximately 20% of TSP

source concentration. This is in accordance with the results reported by Olusegun et al.

[47] and Sairanen [7]. Sairanen [7] measured background concentration within the

distance of a few tens of meters from the drill. A concentration decrease with increasing

distance is also observed with longer distances and lower concentration levels [6], but

the decrease is more pronounced in immediate surroundings of the drill.

Measurements near (less than 50 m distance) the crusher or inside the aggregate

quarry or at the aggregate quarry boundary at downwind direction (if direction reported)

are considered to represent the source concentration for crushing. Finnish aggregate

quarries had the highest TSP source mass concentrations on average from almost 30,000

to below 40,000 µg/m3 [41,48]. In Iran, stone crushing produced TSP (total dust) and

PM2.5 (respirable) almost 10,000 µg/m3 and approximately 1200 µg/m3, respectively

[49]. Three studies conducted at aggregate quarries in India gained lower TSP mass

concentrations from 1000 to about 4000 µg/m3 [50-52]. TSP source mass concentration

was same order of magnitude, approximately 1100 µg/m3 and 3500 µg/m3, also in

studies conducted in Taiwan and Nigeria, respectively [20,42]. The lowest TSP source

concentrations were measured at a gravel crushing site [43] and at a limestone mine and

a granite quarry [3]. Both studies measured TSP mass concentration approximately

from 100 to 1000 µg/m3. The amount of crushing units was high (50, 72 and 40 units,

respectively) in all studies conducted in India [50-52], but the capacity was modest,

approximately 50 t/d compared to movable crushers. Average production rate of

movable crushers in Europe is approximately 300 t/h. The amount of crushing units was

high (29) also in the study conducted in Iran reported by Bahrami et al. [49]. The

capacity of the crushers was not reported. The amount of workers, which was from five

to eight in each crusher, implies that crushing capacity was modest also in study

reported by Bahrami et al. [49] compared to crushing units operated with machinery,

e.g. wheel loaders.

Junttila et al. [41] and [48] gained also the highest PM10 mass concentrations

varying from approximately 3000 µg/m3 to almost 36,000 µg/m3. Olusegun et al. [47]

measured high PM10 concentrations near crushing, almost 11,000 µg/m3. Degan et al.

[44] gained PM10 concentrations approximately 4400 µg/m3 and 5400 µg/m3 for

primary and secondary crushing, respectively. Other researches gained lower PM10

mass concentrations, roughly 1000 µg/m3 [20,51,52] or only few hundred µg PM10/m3

[3,42,43].

Even though Chang et al. [43] had low TSP and PM10 concentrations at the

gravel processing site, the dust deposition amounts were the highest among all the

studies measuring dust deposition. The average deposition was from approximately 9 up

to almost 22 g/m2/month, while other studies [16,53,54] reported dust deposition from

approximately 2 to 9 g/m2/month near the dust source. The dust deposition at the

surroundings of the limestone quarry was lower than ambient dust deposition near other

quarries [53]. Deposition studies were mainly conducted at longer distances (from

hundreds of meters to kilometers) compared to mass concentration studies (less than

100 meters).

Haul road dust was measured in an open-pit basalt quarry [44], in four gravel

crushing sites [43], in and near limestone quarry [55,56] and in an open-pit iron ore

quarry [14]. The results were mainly similar to the TSP and PM10 fractions that were

available for comparison apart from results gained in the basalt quarry, in which the

PM10 mass concentrations were over 4000 µg/m3, being approximately four times

higher compared to results gained in other studies reported here. Hauling produced TSP

mass concentrations from approximately 1600 to almost 3000 µg/m3 and PM10 from

approximately 600 to over 1000 µg/m3 [14,43,55-57]. The lowest values were gained

near a limestone quarry by Abu-Allaban et al. [56].

2.2 Dust concentration decrease with increasing distance

Dust concentration decrease evaluations were possible in seven studies. One study

covered dust concentration in a stone quarry [7] and one addressed dust concentration

[51] and two dust depositions [53,54] in rock aggregate quarries. Three studies placed

emphasis on hauling [14,55,57].

Dust concentration decreases rapidly within a few tens of meters from the

drilling in the stone quarry (Figure 1). The ambient dust concentrations were measured

at the same elevation (“same”, see Figure 1) as the drill and also at the higher elevation

(approximately 6 m higher, “higher”, see Figure 1) on the next quarry bench of the

stone quarry [7].

Figure 1. Dust concentrations at different distances at the same elevation (not

reported or “same”) as the drilling and at higher elevation on next quarry bench

(“higher”) of the stone quarry. Figure compiled from data by Olusegun et al. [47] and

Sairanen [7]. Note log10 scale for y-axis.

Larger-size fractions decrease faster compared to smaller ones (Figure 1).

According to Sairanen [7] the background concentrations are achieved at distances of

55 m and 80 m for coarse (TSP, PM10) and fine (PM2.5) particles, respectively, when

conducting ambient measurements at the same elevation with the drill. The background

concentrations are achieved approximately at 40 m distance for all measured particle

size categories, when conducting ambient measurements at higher elevations compared

to the drilling [7]. Also Olusegun et al. [47] observed significant decrease in PM10 mass

concentration within few tens of meters: at 25 m distance the concentration was roughly

only 25% of source concentration. [47].

Chang [20] and Olusegun et al. [47] reported dust concentration decrease with

increasing distance, but according to Sivacoumar et al. [51], dust concentrations showed

no systematic reduction with increasing distance. The analysis included all ambient

measuring station results at all compass points around the aggregate quarry, but

restricting analysis to concentrations measured by Sivacoumar et al. [51] at a certain

compass point (approximately east), the dust mass concentration decreasing with

increasing distance becomes more pronounced (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Dust concentrations at different distances from crushing. Figure

compiled from data by Chang [20], Sivacoumar et al. [51] and Olusegun et al. [47].

Note log10 scale for y-axis.

According to the results gained by Sivacoumar et al. [51] the background

concentrations are achieved at distances of 1040 m, 1210 m and 990 m for TSP, PM10

and PM2.5, respectively. Olusegun et al. [47] observed significant decrease in PM10 mass

concentration within few tens of meters from crushing, but the retention was not as

distinct as it was for drilling. At 25 m distance dust concentration formed during the

crushing was under 50% of the source concentration whereas the remaining dust

concentration for drilling at the same distance was 25% [47].

The decrease in dust deposition with increasing distance was observed in several

studies, e.g. Aatos [6], Martinsson [53] and Cattle et al. [54]. The deposition measuring

distance varied from few hundred meters to almost ten kilometres (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Crushing dust deposition at different distances from a gold mine

(three measurement lines, ML1-3; Cattle et al. [54]) and in two aggregate quarries (A

and D; Martinsson [53]). Note log10 scale for x-axis.

The inverse correlation of dust concentration and distance from the quarries is

unobvious due to local dust sources (traffic), especially in quarry A [53]. Therefore the

results from quarry A are excluded from further analysis of dust retention results. The

background deposition is achieved at distance 5400-9500 m from the Australian gold

mine [54] and 770 m from quarry D [53]. According to particle diameter analysis, a

significant amount of dust deposited originates from local sources, because the average

modal diameter for the nearest (39 µm) and the background (22 µm) measuring station

were both categorized as regional (15-50 µm) particles [54].

Reed [14] and Organiscak and Reed [55] both measured TSP, PM10 (thoracic)

and PM2.5 (respirable) dust concentrations at three different distances at two

measurement lines beside haul roads in iron ore mine and limestone quarry,

respectively. Reed [14] measured PM2.5 concentrations with two different measuring

techniques: a cascade impactor and a personal DataRAM (PDR) monitor. Docx et al.

[57] measured TSP concentrations with same sampling setup as Reed [14] and

Organiscak and Reed [55], but with different method. All three studies observed similar

decreasing in concentration with increasing distance. The retention of dust was

significant within a 30 m distance from haul road for both coarse (Figure 4) and fine

(Figure 5) particles.

Figure 4. TSP and PM10 (thoracic) concentrations from hauling at different

distances. Figure compiled from data by Reed [14]; Organiscak and Reed [55]; Docx

et al. [57].

Figure 5. The PM2.5 (respirable) concentrations from hauling at different

distances. Figure compiled from data by Reed [14]; Organiscak and Reed [55].

The background concentrations are achieved approximately at distances 16 m

and 11 m for TSP and PM10, respectively [14,55]. Docx et al. [57] observed that TSP

(mass of particulates) achieved background concentrations at distance 29 m. The

background concentrations of fine particles are achieved approximately at distances 19

m and 10 m for cascade impactor and PDR-measurement [14]. Organiscak and Reed

[55] results refer that PM2.5 reaches background concentration at 19 m distance. Results

gained by Reed [14] were highly consistent with study reported by Organiscak and

Reed [55] and Docx et al. [57]. Results for Organiscak and Reed [55] and Docx et al.

[57] were construed from figures and therefore results for these studies are considered

only indicative.

Abu-Allaban et al. [56] and Docx et al. [57] gained roughly half the

concentration of PM10 and TSP (see Appendix A), respectively, close to a haul road

compared to results reported by Reed [14] and Organiscak and Reed [55]. The highest

concentration beside a haul road was measured by Degan et al. [44], which was

approximately 4300 µg PM10/m3.

Dust concentrations decrease rapidly within the first 15 m from the haul road.

Due to the effect of the dust plume of the haul truck, the background concentrations

measured are higher than expected and therefore Reed [14] concluded that background

concentration is reached approximately at the 30 m distance. Also, Organiscak and

Reed [55] observed significant decrease in dust concentration at the 15 m distance and

further concentration reduction at the 30 m distance from the haul road. Particle size

analysis showed that the amount of PM10 in total airborne dust from hauling was on

average 15% [14]. A majority (at least 80%) of the airborne dust generated by the trucks

was non-respirable [55].

Chang et al. [43] and Reed [14] concluded that unpaved haul roads comprise the

major sources of fugitive dust and the effect of haul road is crucial even when compared

to drilling and crushing. Unpaved roads account approximately for 45-55% of the total

particulate emissions at the gravel processing site and windblown dust from the bare

ground is the second most significant dust source, accounting for 20-40% of TSP

emissions [43]. Olusegun et al. [47] observed the drilling as a dominant dust source

compared to crushing.

Bluvshtein et al. [16] observed stable concentrations at the upwind location

relative to those measured at the downwind location. The downwind TSP

concentrations correlated with the production in the quarry [16]. Also Almeida et al. [3]

reported correlation between TSP generation and the amount of production.

Chang et al. [43] concluded that the silt (equal to or less than 75 µm in diameter)

and moisture content of raw materials constituted the dominant factors affecting fugitive

dust emissions. The greater the silt and lower the moisture content, the higher the

concentration of fugitive dust formed [43]. Variation in local climatic conditions is

observed to have an effect on dust concentrations. Wind speed and direction have a

significant effect on results [e.g. 45].

2.3 The emission factors for quarrying processes

US EPA has defined emission factors for different quarrying processes. These processes

were tertiary crushing, fines crushing, screening, fines screening, truck loading and

unloading, conveyor transfer point and wet drilling. The emission factor for tertiary

crushing is applicable to primary and secondary crushing as an upper factor limit. In the

US EPA [5] emission factors, estimates for blasting are not presented because of an

insufficient amount of data and unreliability of available tests.

Emission factor studies have been conducted in several different quarries

processing limestone or granite. The collected emission data from different quarries was

combined to represent typical quarrying processes. PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from

limestone and granite processing were assumed to be similar [5]. TSP emissions were

calculated from the PM10 emissions by multiplying the PM10 concentration with factor

2.1 [58]. Other studies have determined emission factors [e.g. 6,43,59], but the US EPA

emission factors are the most commonly applied ones. Appendix B presents emission

factors in detail.

Emission factors were tested at laboratory with rotating drum and limestone

samples by Petavratzi et al. [60]. The evaluated test parameters were flow rate, tumbling

time and sample mass. The results varied significantly: the percentage of the total dust

mass compared to the test sample mass ranged from 0.04 to 0.9%. The tumbling time

had a greater effect on the dustiness than the sample mass. Consequently, quarrying

processes release higher dust levels with longer operating times. The preliminary

control tests showed increasing dust loads with an increasing airflow rate drawn through

the drum. The most critical parameter affecting the dustiness besides the tumbling time

was the concentration of fine particles in the test sample [60].

Chakraborty et al. [59] conducted studies at the winter season (1997-1998) to

evaluate the worst possible scenario of air pollution due to low atmospheric ventilation.

Aatos [6] measured nine days and analysed the results from five days, excluding the

rainy and calm (wind speed under 1 m/s) ones. Both Chakraborty et al. [59] and Aatos

[6] applied the highest measured values and Chang et al. [43] the average downwind

concentration when determining emission factors.

US EPA [5] and Chang et al. [43] determined emission factors mainly for

different processes. The PM10 emission factors for loading and unloading raw and

crushed material were similar enough for comparison. The PM10 emission factors for

raw material loading were 8.0×10-6 kg/t [5] and 0.48 kg/t [43]. The emission factors for

crushed product loading were 5.0×10-5 kg/t [5] and 0.56 kg/t [43]. The emission factors

obtained from the gravel processing site were significantly higher (tens of thousands of

times higher) compared to US EPA emission factors. Chang et al. [43] had TSP/PM10

ratio 1.4…1.7 whereas US EPA had 1.7…4.1, when calculating ratios from the reported

emission factors.

Chakraborty et al. [59] and Aatos [6] had an emission factor for overall quarry

available for comparison. Chakraborty et al. [59] gained an emission factor for TSP,

which was ten times higher compared to the emission factor for PM10 reported by Aatos

[6].

3. Discussion

There were restricted amount of studies available that met the criteria concerning the

aim of this review. The reviewed literature employed several different sampling setups.

Dust concentrations were measured in different quarries with several measuring

techniques, which also complicates the comparison of results. As pointed out by

Petavratzi et al. [2], the quarrying operations are quite diverse and it is difficult to define

an absolute standard for measurements applicable to all quarries. Material properties,

quarrying methods, operational variations and locations constitute some of the

parameters that are different for every quarry. Climatic conditions have been widely

recognized as a factor crucially affecting dust concentrations [e.g. 6,16,50,54]. Climatic

conditions vary from site to site due to differences in location and microclimatic

structure. Quarries have to be assessed in accordance with particular characteristics. The

results gathered here support this. The background concentrations varied significantly,

for example, being multiple times higher in locations such as India [51] and Australia

[54], compared to Sweden [53] and Finland [7].

3.1 Dust concentrations and depositions

According to the dust measurement studies reviewed in this article, the variation in dust

mass concentrations is significant for both drilling and crushing, which implies that dust

concentrations at quarries and their ambient environments are highly site specific. Since

open-pit quarrying facilities are dynamic operations exposed to changing weather

conditions, day-to-day dust levels can be highly variable [55]. The dust concentration

variation for TSP is larger for drilling than for crushing, ranging from 100 up to 110,000

µ/m3. For crushing, the TSP concentration varies from 100 to almost 40,000 µg/m3.

Despite the large variation, the dust measurements near drilling gained results largely

hundreds of µg TSP/m3 whereas near crushing the dust mass concentrations were

usually several thousands of µg TSP/m3. This implies that crushing produces more dust

compared to drilling, which is in accordance with Petavratzi et al. [2].

Dust measurements close to haul roads showed smaller variation in results (TSP

1400-3000 µg/m3 and PM10 1000-4300 µg/m3) compared to drilling and crushing

measurements. The lower variation may be explained by the restricted amount of

studies all made after 2000 (six studies concentrating on hauling). Also, the similarity of

dust source may be higher in hauling studies (vehicles passing by and lifting dust into

the air) compared to drilling and crushing (different equipment with differing

production capacities).

The studies from 1990s frequently reported higher dust concentrations than

studies completed after 2000. However, some exceptions appear [e.g. 44,46]. The dust

mass concentrations caused by drilling were lower compared to those from crushing

according to measurements made in 2000s. In the earlier measurements, the difference

was not distinct. This is probably due to the enhanced dust prevention techniques and

development of quarrying equipment and processes. Also some of the dust

measurements made near drillings in 1990s may have been affected by other dust

sources in the quarry area.

The reported results of the dust depositions were consistent, whereas there was

high variation in TSP mass concentrations for crushing studies. The variation was

lowest when the sampling locations were far away from the sources (several hundred

meters) and the duration time for sampling was long (several months). This indicates

that dust deposition results represent well the overall dust load in the explored area.

However, the contribution of the actual quarry production to the dust load remains

unclear.

Some of the studies described the measurement setup on a level insufficiently

detailed for the scope of this review [e.g. 41,45,47,49]. In addition, SPM was used as a

surrogate to PM10 by Olusegun et al. [47], which increases the uncertainty of the

comparison of their results to other studies due to the differing definition. Also the

restricted amount of studies (e.g. studies made at 1990s) increases the uncertainty of

comparison. The ability to extrapolate these results to other quarries seems

inconclusive. Even though the results could not be fully generalized, the concentration

results revealed a range within which the dust concentration varies in the stone and

aggregate quarries. The variation in concentration remained too high, especially for

drilling, to make reasonable evaluation of environmental effects. The higher values are

however applicable as upper limit values when evaluating the acceptable level of

environmental effects in the vicinity of a quarry.

Measurements at several different quarries according to the same procedure are

needed for comparing the results and to verify the possibility of extrapolation.

Measurements at different distances are required to be comparable, e.g. the

measurements are from the same climatic and production conditions. Controlling the

variables which affect dust concentration is required to gain results generalizable to

other quarries.

Sampling with short sampling intervals (seconds) is recommended for yielding a

large amount of data in a short time period. It allows comprehending the effects of

weather condition when observing weather parameters at the same time. Short sampling

intervals also enable measuring at several sampling locations at the same climatic

conditions, which increases certainty when comparing results.

3.2 Retention of dust

Several studies have observed dust mass concentration decreasing with increasing

distances, but retention was not always obvious. The highest concentration or deposition

of dust was mainly measured at the nearest measurement locations from the source in

all the reviewed studies, which is expected. Also the retention was more pronounced in

the immediate surroundings (within few tens of meters) from the dust source, when

interfering local dust sources lacked. When the samplers located far from the quarry, the

results showed no entirely consistent decrease of dust concentration due to the

significant impact of local dust sources affecting the results. The evaluation of the

distance needed for achieving background concentration or deposition varied from 10

meters [14] to 9000 meters [54]. According to modelling results, the impact zone

(distance where 200 µg TSP/m3 is achieved) of quarry dust varies from 150 m to 2700

m and from 70 m to 1400 m for uncontrolled crushing and after implementing dust

control measures, respectively [52]. The background concentration was reached at

shorter distance when measuring at higher elevations compared to the dust source [7],

which is in accordance with the findings gained via modelling stating that 30-70% of

the fugitive dust emissions from quarrying activities retain within the quarry boundary

[e.g. 34,35,37].

The background concentrations of TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 are achieved mainly

within the hundred-meter distance (hauling and drilling), except for crushing. Therefore,

in terms of environmental effects in the ambient environment of quarries, the crushing

is more essential compared to hauling and drilling. However, the dust concentration

caused by drilling showed higher variation compared to results gained near crushing

and therefore drilling may be determinant in dust production in some quarries.

The dust deposition decrease measured by Martinsson [53] was approximately

ten times the corresponding values gained by Cattle et al. [54]. The lower retention rate

for dust deposition gained by Cattle et al. [54] compared to the retention rate gained by

Martinsson [53], may be explained by measuring distances which ranged from 700 to

9000 m and from 10 to 400 m, respectively. The longer distances enable more

interfering dust sources, which affects the results.

Measurements at different distances from the dust source are needed to define

dust retention curves to evaluate the distances dust spreading in the atmosphere. The

retention of dust concentration requires measurements performed at several relatively

short distances (approximately from tens of meters to few hundreds of meters) to

control factors affecting the measurement like microclimatic conditions and local dust

sources.

3.3 Emission factors

The US EPA emission factors estimate lower dust concentrations compared to other

emission factors [6,43,59]. The US EPA emission factors may yield, at some

circumstances, an underestimation of dust concentration when used as a source

parameter in modelling the ambient environment of a planned quarry. Emission factors

should only be adopted when more accurate data is unavailable [58].

In US EPA [5] emission factors for TSP were calculated from PM10 emission

factors. The emission factors had varying TSP/PM10 ratios, which in some cases

differed from the ratio (2.1) which was announced to be used in calculations [58]. The

extrapolation of the TSP emission factor from the PM10 emission factor may have had

an effect on the reported emission factors. Also the significance of the rock type

processed was assumed to be negligible. Limestone and granite may behave differently

in quarrying processes because different minerals break down at different rates due to

the quarrying processes.

Due to the large variation in emission factors and the development of quarrying

equipment (e.g., enhancement of dust prevention techniques), the emission factors

should be verified in the future to neglect the misevaluation when modelling dust

concentrations. Also the effect of process duration, rock type and raw material fine

content are parameters which impact the emission and these factors should be included

in the examination.

According to dust concentration results reviewed here, the TSP concentration is

from 1.5 to 15 times the concentration of PM10. Majority of the studies which measured

TSP and PM10 [e.g. 43,48,51] showed that the TSP concentration is approximately 2 to

4 times the concentration of PM10. Chakraborty et al. [59] gained an emission factor for

TSP which was ten times higher compared to the emission factor for PM10 reported by

Aatos [6]. This implies that Chackraborty et al. [59] determined a higher emission factor

for the overall quarry compared to Aatos [6]. This is also in accordance with the

concern that crushing produces significant amounts of dust compared to drilling [2,42].

4. Conclusions

This review reports dust concentration ranges derived from selected studies of drilling,

crushing and hauling dust. The results varied significantly from 100 to 110,000 µg

TSP/m3 near the dust source. Upper values are applicable to conservative evaluations

when evaluating environmental effects caused by a planned quarry.

The results show that crushing has the most significant effect on dust

concentration caused by quarrying. The highest dust concentrations and depositions

were mainly measured at aggregate quarries and also emission factors were higher for

aggregate quarries compared to natural stone quarries.

The measurements in the 1990s yielded higher concentrations than those made

in the 2000s. This is probably due to the enhanced dust prevention techniques and

development of quarrying equipment and processes.

Dust concentration decrease with increasing distance was observed, but the

retention was not always obvious due to local dust sources affecting the results. The

evaluation of the distance needed for achieving background concentration or deposition

varied from 10 meters [14] to 9000 meters [54].

Quarries produce mainly coarse particles, which is supported by all studies

measuring fine and coarse particle concentration. TSP concentration was approximately

2 to 4 times the concentration of PM10.

Measurements at several different quarries according to the same procedure are

needed when comparing the results. Sampling with short sampling intervals (seconds) is

recommended for yielding large amounts of data in short time periods and for enabling

the measurements at several sampling locations at the same climatic conditions.

References:

[1] European Commission, Non-energy mineral extraction and Natura 2000, EC

Guidance, ISBN 978-92-79-18646-2, doi 10.2779/98870, 2010.

[2] E. Petavratzi, S.W. Kingman and I. Lowndes, Particulates from mining

operations: a review of sources, effects and regulations, Miner. Eng. 18 (2005),

pp. 1183-1199.

[3] I.T. Almeida, S.M. Eston and J.V. de Assunção, Characterization of suspended

particulate matter in mining areas in São Paulo, Brazil, Int. J. of Surf. Min.,

Reclam. and Environ. 16(3) (2002), pp. 171-179.

[4] H. Korkmaz, B. Çetin, İ. Ege, A. Karataş, A. Bom and E. Özşahin,

Environmental effects of stone pits in Hatay (Turkey), The 2nd International

Geography Symposium GEOMED 2010, Procedia Soc. and Behav. Sci. 19

(2011), pp. 504-510.

[5] US EPA, AP42, Fifth Edition, Volume I Chapter 11: Mineral Products Industry.

11.19.2 Crushed Stone Processing and Pulverized Mineral Processing, Mineral

Products Industry, 8/04, 2004b, pp. 5-7. (October 2015) Available at

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch11/final/c11s1902.pdf.

[6] S. Aatos (ed.), Luonnonkivituotannon elinkaaren aikaiset ympäristövaikutukset

(Environmental effects in natural stone production life cycle), Suomen

ympäristö, Luonto ja luonnonvarat 656, Ympäristöministeriö, 2003, pp. 120-

127. [In Finnish with an English summary]

[7] M. Sairanen, Pölypäästöt luonnonkivituotannossa (Dust emission in natural

stone production), in Best environmental practices (BEP) for natural stone

production, I. Romu ed., The Finnish Environment 5/2014, 2014, pp. 44-60. [In

Finnish with an English summary]

[8] O. Selonen and T. Heldal, Technologies, in Nordic Stone, O. Selonen and V.

Suominen eds., Geological Science series, UNESCO publishing, Paris, France

(2003), pp. 42-50.

[9] J.A. Organiscak and S.J. Page (2005) Development of a dust collector inlet hood

for enhanced surface mine drill dust capture, Int. J. of Surf. Min., Reclam. and

Environ. 19(1) (2005), pp.12-28.

[10] M. Räisänen, From outcrops to dust – mapping, testing, and quality assessment

of aggregates, University of Helsinki, Publications of the Department of

Geology D1, Yliopistopaino Helsinki, 2004.

[11] A. Hakapää and P. Lappalainen (ed.), Kaivos- ja louhintatekniikka (Mining and

quarrying technology), ISBN 978-952-13-4615-6, 2011. [In Finnish]

[12] F.N. Kissell, Handbook for dust control in mining, NIOSH IC 9465, Information

circular/2003, U.S. Department of health and human services, Centers for

disease control and prevention, National institute for occupational safety and

health, Pittsburgh research laboratory, Pittsburgh, 2003.

[13] G. Belardi, G. Vignaroli, P. Plescia and L. Passeri, The assessment of particulate

matter emitted from stone-crushing industry by correlating rock textures with

particles generated after comminution and dispersed in air environment,

Environ. Sci. and Pollut. Res. Int. 20(7) (2013), pp. 4711-4728.

[14] W.R. Reed, An improved model for prediction of PM10 from surface mining

operations, Dissertation submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic

Institute and State University in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the

degree of doctor in philosophy in mining and minerals engineering, Blacksburg,

Virginia, 2003.

[15] W.C. Hinds (ed.), Aerosol Technology: Properties, Behavior and Measurement

of Airborne Particles, 2nd ed., Wiley-Interscience, USA, 1999, pp. 15-53.

[16] N. Bluvshtein, Y. Mahrer, A. Sandler and G. Rytwo, Evaluating the impact of a

limestone quarry on suspended and accumulated dust, Atmos. Environ. 45

(2011), pp. 1732-1739.

[17] US EPA, AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I Chapter 13: Miscellaneous Sources,

1995, (October 2015) Available at

http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch13/final/c13s02.pdf.

[18] World Health Organization, Hazard Prevention and Control in the Work

Environment: Airborne Dust, World Health Organization, Switzerland,

WHO/SDE/OEH/99.14. 1999, pp 1-31. (April 2014) Available at

http://www.who.int/occupational_health/publications/en/oehairbornedust3.pdf.

[19] Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Mineral Policy Statement 2: Controlling

and Mitigating the Environmental Effects of Minerals Extraction in England,

U.K. MPS2, 2003.

[20] C.T. Chang, Assessment of Influential Range and Characteristics of Fugitive

Dust in Limestone Extraction Process, J. of the Air & Waste Manage. Assoc.

54(2) (2004), pp. 141-148.

[21] M. Räisänen and M. Mertamo, An evaluation of the procedure and results of

laboratory crushing in quality assessment of rock aggregate raw materials, Bull.

of Eng. Geol. and the Environ. 63 (2004), pp. 33-39.

[22] C.A. III Pope, Mortality effects of longer term exposure to fine particulate air

pollution; review of recent epidemiological evidence, Inhal. Toxicol. 19(Suppl.

1) (2007), pp.33–38.

[23] N. Vinod, L. Swarna and M. Mahesh, Morbidity profile of stone crusher workers

with special reference to respiratory morbidity – A cross sectional study, Natl. J.

of Community Med. 3(3) (2012), pp. 368-371.

[24] M.M. Draid, K.M. Ben-Elhaj, A.M. Ali, K.K. Schmid and S.G. Gibbs, Lung

Function Impact from Working in the Pre-Revolution Libyan Quarry Industry,

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 12 (2015), pp. 5006-5012.

[25] US EPA, Air & Radiation, Six common pollutants, Particulate matter PM,

Health, 2013. (April 2014) Available at

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/particlepollution/health.html.

[26] E. Samoli, M. Stafoggia, S. Rodopoulou, B. Ostro, C. Declercq, E. Alessandrini,

J. Díaz, A. Karanasiou, A.G. Kelessis, A. Le Tertre, P. Pandolfi, G. Randi, C.

Scarinzi, S. Zauli-Sajani, K. Katsouyanni and F. Forastiere, Associations

between fine and coarse particles and mortality in Mediterranean cities: Results

from the MED-PARTICLES project, Environ. Health Perspect. 121(8) (2013),

pp.932-938.

[27] UK Environment Agency, Monitoring Methods for Ambient Air, Technical

Guidance Note M9, Environment Agency, Bristol, UK, M9, 2000.

[28] US EPA, Guidance for using continuous monitoring in PM2.5 monitoring

networks, United States Environmental Protection Agency, USA, EPA-454/R-

98-012, 1998 pp. 40-68.

[29] Mineral Industry Research Organisation, Sustainable aggregates, information

gateway, Glossary DEF, 2015. (April 2015) Available at

http://www.sustainableaggregates.com/library/glossary/glossary_def.htm#D.

[30] US EPA, Emissions Factors & AP 42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission

Factors, 2014. (April 2015) Available at

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.html.

[31] N.S. Holmes and L. Morawska, A review of dispersion modelling and its

application to the dispersion of particles: An overview of different dispersion

models available, Atmos. Environ. 40 (2006), pp. 5902-5928.

[32] US EPA, Preferred/Recommended Models. Technology Transfer Network,

Support Center for Regulatory Atmospheric Modelling, 2015. (February 2016)

Available at http://www3.epa.gov/scram001/dispersion_prefrec.htm.

[33] T.J. Appleton, S.W. Kingman, I.S. Lowndes and S.A. Silvester, The

development of a modeling strategy for the simulation of fugitive dust emissions

from in-pit quarrying activities: a UK case study, Int. J. of Min., Reclam. and

Environ. 20(1) (2006), pp. 57-82.

[34] I.S. Lowndes, S.A. Silvester, S.W. Kingman and D.M Hargreaves, The

application of an improved multi-scale computational modelling techniques to

predict fugitive dust dispersion and deposition within and from surface mining

operations, 12th U.S./North American Mine Ventilation Symposium, Wallace

ed., ISBN 978-0-615-20009-5, 2008.

[35] S.A. Silvester, I.S. Lowndes and D.M. Hargreaves, A computational study of

particulate emissions from an open pit quarry under neutral atmospheric

conditions, Atmos. Environ. 43 (2009), pp. 6415-6424.

[36] D. Tartakovsky, D.M. Broday and E. Stern, Evaluation of AERMOD and

CALPUFF for predicting ambient concentrations of total suspended particulate

matter (TSP) emissions from a quarry in complex terrain, Environ. Pollut. 179

(2013), pp. 138-145.

[37] W.R. Reed, Significant dust dispersion models for mining operations, IC 9478

Information circular/2005, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety

and Health, 2005.

[38] D. Tartakovsky, E. Stern and D.M. Broday, Dispersion of TSP and PM10

emissions from quarries in complex terrain, Sci. of the Total Environ. 542

(2016), pp. 946-954.

[39] S. Torno, J. Toraño, M. Menéndez and M. Gent, CFD simulation of blasting

dust for the design of physical barriers, Environ. Earth Sci. 64 (2011), pp. 73-83.

[40] J. Toraño, S. Torno, I. Diego, M. Menéndez and M. Gent, Dust emission

calculations in open pit storage piles protected by means of barriers, CFD and

experimental tests, Environ. Fluid Mech. 9 (2009), pp. 493-507.

[41] S. Junttila, A. Tossavainen, T. Hartikainen, P. Härmä, K. Korhonen, V.

Suominen and L. Pyy, Airborne mineral fibers and quartz dust in precambrian

metamorphic limestone and dolomite mines in Finland, Appl. Occup. Envinron.

Hyg. 11(8) (1996), pp. 1075-1080.

[42] B.S. Bada, K.A. Olatunde and O.A. Akande, Air quality assessment in the

vicinity of quarry site, Environ. and Nat. Resour. Res. 3(2) (2013), pp. 111-115.

[43] C.T. Chang, Y.M. Chang, W.Y. Lin and M.C. Wu, Fugitive dust emission

source profiles and assessment of selected control strategies for particulate

matter at gravel processing sites in Taiwan, J. of the Air & Waste Manag. Assoc.

60 (2010), pp. 1262-1268.

[44] G.A. Degan, D. Lippiello and M. Pinzari, Monitoring airborne dust in an Italian

basalt quarry: comparison between sampling methods, Air Pollution XXI, 174

(2013), pp. 75-84.

[45] J.A. Organiscak and S.J. Page, Assessment of Airborne Dust Generated From

Small Truck-Mounted Rock Drills, RI 9616, Report of investigations/1995,

United States Department of the Interior, United States Bureau of Mines, 1995.

[46] F. Golbabaei, M.-A. Barghi and M. Sakhaei, Evaluation of workers’ exposure to

total, respirable and silica dust and the related health symptoms in Senjedak

stone quarry, Iran, Ind. Health 42 (2004), pp. 29-33.

[47] O. Olusegun, A. Adeniyi and G.T. Adeola, Impact of Granite Quarrying on the

Health of Workers and Nearby Residents in Abeokuta Ogun State, Nigeria,

Ethiopian J. of Environ. Stud. and Manag. 2(1) (2009), pp. 1-11.

[48] S. Junttila, A. Tossavainen, T. Hartikainen, P. Härmä, K. Korhonen, V.

Suominen and L. Pyy, Airborne mineral dust at nine crushed rock plants in

Finland, Appl. Occup. Envinron. Hyg. 12(12) (1996), pp. 882-886.

[49] A.R. Bahrami, F. Golbabai, H. Mahjub, F. Qorbani, M. Aliabadi and M. Barqi,

Determination of Exposure to Respirable Quartz in the Stone Crushing Units at

Azendarian-West of Iran, Ind. Health 46 (2008), pp. 404-408.

[50] D.C. Saha and P.K. Padhy, Effects of stone crushing industry on Shorea robusta

and Madhuca indica foliage in Lalpahari forest, Atmos. Pollut. Res. 2 (2011),

pp. 463-476.

[51] R. Sivacoumar, R. Jayabalou, S. Swarnalatha and B. Balakrishnan, Particulate

matter from stone crushing industry: Size distribution and health effects, J. of

Environ. Eng. 132(3) (2006), pp. 405-414.

[52] R. Sivacoumar, S.M. Raj, S.J. Chinnadurai and R. Jayabalou, Modelling of

fugitive dust emission and control measures in stone crushing industry, J. of

Environ. Monit. 11 (2009), pp. 987-997.

[53] P. Martinsson, Mätning av fallande stoft vid bergtäkter 2010 in Undersökningen

av eventuella effekter på vegetation av damning från täktverksamhet, Slutraport,

O. Bengtsson and B. Olausson, MinBaS II, område 3, raport nro 3.1a-4, 2011

pp. 32-49. [In Swedish]

[54] S.R. Cattle, K. Hemi, G.L. Pearson and T. Sanderson, Distinguishing and

characterizing point-source mining dust and diffuse-source dust deposits in a

semi-arid district of eastern Australia, Aeolian Res. 6 (2012), pp. 21-29.

[55] J.A. Organiscak and W.R. Reed, Characteristics of Fugitive Dust Generated

from Unpaved Mine Haulage Roads, Int. J. of Surf. Min., Reclam. and Environ.

18(4) (2004), pp. 236-252.

[56] M. Abu-Allaban, S. Hamasha and A. Gertler, Road dust resuspension in the

vicinity of limestone quarries in Jordan, J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 56

(2006), pp. 1440-1444.

[57] J. Docx, S.W. Kingman, E.H. Lester, I.S. Lowndes, S.A. Silvester and T. Wu,

An investigation into unpaved road emissions from a UK surface limestone

quarry using cylindrical adhesive pad collectors and image analysis, Int. J. of

Surf. Min., Reclam. and Environ. 21(2) (2007), pp. 126-143.

[58] US EPA, (2004a) Response to comments, AP42 section 11.19.2 Crushed stone

processing and pulverized mineral processing, 23.2.2004 draft pp 4, 2004a.

(October 2015) Available at

http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch11/related/rel_11s1902.pdf.

[59] M.K. Chakraborty, M. Ahmad, R.S. Singh, D. Pal, C. Bandopadhyay and S.K.

Chaulya, Determination of the emission rate from various opencast mining

operations, Environ. Model & Softw. 17 (2002), pp. 467-480.

[60] E. Petavratzi, S.W. Kingman and I.S. Lowndes, Assessment of the dustiness and

the dust liberation mechanisms of limestone quarry operations, Chem. Eng. and

Process 46 (2007), pp. 1412-1423.

Table 1. Reviewed studies according to the main dust sources.

Figure 1. Dust concentrations at different distances at the same elevation (not reported

or “same”) as the drilling and at higher elevation on next quarry bench (“higher”) of the

stone quarry. Figure compiled from data by Olusegun et al. [47] and Sairanen [7]. Note

log10 scale for y-axis.

Figure 2. Dust concentrations (Note: log10 scale) at different distances from crushing.

Figure compiled from data by Chang [20], Sivacoumar et al. [51] and Olusegun et al.

[47]. Note log10 scale for y-axis.

Figure 3. Crushing dust deposition at different distances from a gold mine (three

measurement lines, ML1-3; Cattle et al. [54]) and in two aggregate quarries (A and D;

Martinsson [53]). Note log10 scale for x-axis.

Figure 4. TSP and PM10 (thoracic) concentrations from hauling at different distances.

Figure compiled from data by Reed [14]; Organiscak and Reed [55]; Docx et al. [57].

Figure 5. The PM2.5 (respirable) concentrations from hauling at different distances.

Figure compiled from data by Reed [14]; Organiscak and Reed [55].

Appendix A. Dust concentration and deposition results in measurements made in open

pit quarries or similar sites. Concentration results given in parenthesis are the observed

ranging of results.

Appendix B. Emission factors.

Table 1 Reviewed studies according to the main dust sources.

Main dust source Research

Drilling Organiscak and Page 1995 [45]

Junttila et al. 1996 [41]

Aatos 2003 [6]

Golbabaei et al. 2004 [46]

Organiscak and Page 2005 [9]

Olusegun et al. 2009 [47]

Bada et al. 2013 [42]

Degan et al. 2013 [44]

Sairanen 2014 [7]

Crushing Junttila et al. 1996 [41]

Junttila et al. 1997 [48]

Almeida et al. 2002 [3]

Chang 2004 [20]

Sivacoumar et al. 2006 [51]

Bahrami et al. 2008 [49]

Olusegun et al. 2009 [47]

Sivacoumar et al. 2009 [52]

Chang et al. 2010 [43]

Bluvshtein et al. 2011 [16]

Martinsson 2011 [53]

Saha and Padhy 2011 [50]

Cattle et al. 2012 [54]

Bada et al. 2013 [42]

Degan et al. 2013 [44]

Hauling Reed 2003 [14]

Organiscak and Reed 2004 [55]

Abu-Allaban et al. 2006 [56]

Docx et al. 2007 [57]

Chang et al. 2010 [43]

Degan et al. 2013 [44]

1

Appendix A. Dust concentration and deposition results in measurements made in open pit quarries or similar sites. Concentration results given in parenthesis are the observed

ranging of results.

Author Method Sampling time/

Duration

Setup/ Distances Results

TSP (µg/m3) PM10 (µg/m3) PM2.5 (µg/m3) Deposition

(g/m2/month)

Drilling

Organiscak

and Page

1995

[45]

Particulate sampling

trains (personal

gravimetric dust sampler)

Light scattering system

(Real-time aerosol

monitor RAM-1)

Dust

concentration

measurements: 2-

4 h

Dust abatement

measurements: 1-

3.5 h

Open pit coal mine

Source: Immediate downwind side of the

drill

Ambient: Downwind at 12.2-30.5 m

distance

Different small rock drills:

Concentration: seven drills

Abatement: three drills (controlled=Ctrl)

Other dust sources not reported

Source:

540-95 150

Ambient:

330-2 690

Ctrl Source:

840-2 140

N.D. N.D. N.D.

Junttila et

al. 1996

[41]

Particulate sampling train

(TSP: open face low flow

sampling to membrane

filter)

28-400 min Four limestone and five dolomite quarries

in Finland

Occupational exposure

Crushing, screening and drilling, other

operations

Sampling at breathing height inside the

quarry

Other processes (e.g. crushing) were

present. Contribution to results unknown.

14 000 N.D. N.D. N.D.

Aatos 2003

[6]

Deposit gauges

Particulate sampling

trains (PM10: Graseby-

Andersen PM10- collector)

Size selective technique

(PM2.5: EPA PM2.5-

impactor)

year 2000

winter (Jan-Feb)

summer (May-

Jun)

autumn (Oct-Nov)

Deposition: one

month

PM10 and PM2.5:

3 d, 6-8 h/d

Natural stone quarry in Finland

Deposition: 10 gauges placed at two

circles at different distances: source and

ambient

Source: 100-550 m

Ambient: 300-850 m

PM10 and PM2.5:

one upwind, two downwind at the same

line at different distances/

Downwind source: 50 m

Downwind ambient: 100-400 m

N.D. DW source: 77

DW ambient: 31

UW: 17

DW source: 19

DW ambient: 10

UW: 8

Source: 1.28

(0.11-13.5)

Ambient: 0.29

(0.05-1.5)

Golbabaei

et al. 2004

[46]

Particulate sampling

trains (TSP: MSA 2G-

2876 and SKC 224-PCX

R3; PM10: 10 mm

cyclone)

2×4 h/d Natural stone quarry in Iran

Occupational exposure

Horizontal rock drill, vertical rock drill,

hammer drill, bulldozer, cutting machine

Horizontal:

79 800

Vertical: 77 800

Hammer:

107 900

Horizontal:

6 400

Vertical: 7 800

Hammer:

11 200

N.D. N.D.

Organiscak

and Page

2005

Particulate sampling

trains (MSA gravimetric

dust sampler)

PDR: 30 s

intervals

Drilling dust abatement system

development

Upwind and downwind, multiple

Without: 180

With: 110

N.D. N.D. N.D.

2

[9] Light scattering system

(MIE Personal

DataRAMs; PDR)

locations around the drill in two open pit

quarries

Other dust sources not reported

Measurements with and without dust

abatement system

Olusegun et

al. 2009

[47]

Light scattering system

(Suspended particulate

matter meter)

N.R. Five selected quarries in Nigeria.

Drilling and crushing

Inside the operation area and 5m, 10m

and 25 m

Concentration is a composite of readings

taken at four different points (cardinal

directions)

N.D. Source:

0m: 16 012

5m: 9 162

10m: 5 908

25m: 4 096

N.D. N.D.

Bada et al.

2013

[42]

Continuous microbalance

instuments (PM10: TSI

Piezobalance respirable

Aerosol Mass Monitor)

Light scattering systems

(TSP: PPM 1005

Handheld Aerosol

Monitor; PM2.5: PDR-

1200)

Dec 2010

3×1 h

Granite quarry in Nigeria

Drilling, crushing, loading

Source: Near the selected quarry

operation

Ambient: 5000 m

Source: 629

Ambient: 498

Source: 74

Ambient: 30

Source: 65

Ambient: <10

N.D.

Degan et al.

2013

[44]

Particulate sampling train

(Pump Mod SKC

224PCEX8, aluminium

cyclone and PVC filter)

Light scattering system

(Sensidyne nephelometer)

Two sampling

campaigns:

May-Jun 2012

3×2 h

Jul 2012 5×2 h

Basalt quarry in Italy

Drilling, primary crushing, secondary

crushing, hauling

During the second sampling campaign

also loading

Source: Near the selected quarry

operation

1.5 m height

N.D. Source:

05-06/12: 5 715

07/12: 4 110

N.D. N.D.

Sairanen

2014

[7]

Light scattering system

(Turnkey Osiris

nephelometer)

15 min, 5 s

intervals

Two days in April

2014

Granite quarry in Finland

Downwind at different distances

Measurements were made at the same

elevation as the drill and at higher

elevation (next quarry bench)

Source: 5-10 m

Ambient: 15-60 m

Background: measured during a longer

break (over 30 min) in production

Source: 95-865

Ambient same

elevation: 54-79

Ambient higher

elevation: 9-77

Background: 3.4

Source: 61-673

Ambient same

elevation: 44-66

Ambient higher

elevation: 6-52

Background: 2.8

Source: 13-66

Ambient same

elevation: 17-22

Ambient higher

elevation: 2-16

Background: 1.5

N.D.

Crushing

Junttila et

al. 1996

[41]

Particulate sampling train

(TSP: open face low flow

sampling to membrane

filter)

Size selective technique

(PM10/respirable dust

28-400 min Four limestone and five dolomite quarries

in Finland

Occupational exposure

Crushing, screening and drilling, other

operations

Sampling at breathing height inside the

Crushing:

37 000

Screening:

30 000

average 2 593-

35 556

N.D. N.D.

3

<5µm: Liquid

sedimentation)

quarry

Other processes (e.g. drilling) were

present. Contribution to results unknown.

Junttila et

al. 1997

[48]

Particulate sampling train

(TSP/total dust: open face

low flow sampling to

membrane filter)

Size selective technique

(PM10/respirable dust

<5µm: Liquid

sedimentation)

25-305 min Aggregate quarry in Finland

Occupational exposure

Drilling and loading sites, crushing plants

screens and conveyors

29 000 9 400 N.D. N.D.

Almeida et

al. 2002

[3]

Particulate sampling train

(TSP: High volume

sampler)

Light scattering system

(PM10 and PM2.5:

LALLS)

4 sampling series

during 5 month

period

24 h sampling

Limestone: Jan-

May 1999

10 d/sampling

series

Granite: Oct-Nov

1997 and Apr-Jun

1998

7 d/sampling

series

Open pit limestone mine and granite

quarry in Brazil

Limestone: Three samplers along the

process line (source) and two samplers

near the site boundary

Granite: Four samplers near the site

boundary

PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations were

calculated from TSP concentration via

particle size distribution results

Limestone:

Source:

308-1 036

Site boundary:

77-120

Granite:

Site boundary:

81-242

Limestone:

Source: 197

Site boundary:

35

Granite:

Site boundary:

37

Limestone:

Source: 52

Site boundary: 9

Granite:

Site boundary: 6

N.D.

Chang 2004

[20]

Particulate sampling train

(TSP: High volume

sampler, PM10: Kimoto

PM10)

Size selective technique

(PM10 and PM2.5:

Anderson 10 µm inlet,

PM2.5 impactor)

Continuous microbalance

system (TEOM)

Deposition gauge

(deposition plate)

3×1h/d

4 d/sampling

series

3 sampling series

in each season

(spring, summer,

autumn, winter)

Limestone quarry in Taiwan

Concentration and size distribution at

different distances inside the quarry area

4 TSP samplers operated concurrently at

each sampling location and 3 sampling

locations operated at the same time

Source: Inside the quarry area

The highest hourly concentration reported

here

Source: 1 111 Source: 825 Source: 236 N.R.

Sivacoumar

et al. 2006

[51]

Particulate sampling train

(High volume sampler)

Light scattering system

(Laser diffraction particle

analyzer)

Summer (Apr-

May 1998)

Premonsoon (Sep-

Oct 1998)

30 d, 8h sampling

6a.m.-2p.m.,

2p.m.-10p.m.,

10p.m.-6a.m.

50 crushing units in aggregate quarry in

India

Source and ambient

Upwind and downwind

Ambient: 30-650 m from crushing units

Source:

DW: 694-2 470

UW: 342-589

Ambient:

DW: 143-257

UW: 86-91

Background: 30

Source:

DW: 110-1 200

UW: 90-156

Ambient:

DW:48-138

UW: 39-44

Source:

DW: 73-388

UW: 41-63

Ambient:

DW: 24-48

UW: 17-23

N.D.

Bahrami et Particulate sampling Mar 2004 and Sep 29 stone crushing units in quartz quarry Source: N.D. Source: N.D.

4

al. 2008

[49]

trains (personal dust

sampler with SKC pump

and plastic cyclone)

2006 in Iran

Occupational exposure

40 stationary source samplers

1.5 m height

9 460 1 240

Olusegun et

al. 2009

[47]

Light scattering system

(Suspended particulate

matter meter)

N.R. Five selected quarries in Nigeria.

Drilling and crushing

Inside the operation area and 5m, 10m

and 25 m

Concentration is a composite of readings

taken at four different points (cardinal

directions)

N.D. Source:

0m: 10 904

5m: 7 296

10m: 5 914

25m: 4 096

N.D. N.D.

Sivacoumar

et al. 2009

[52]

Particulate sampling train

(TSP: High volume

sampler)

Light scattering system

(CILAS 1180 model)

3 months (Jun-

Aug 2006)

72 crushing units in aggregate quarry in

India

Source and ambient

PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations were

calculated from TSP concentration via

particle size distribution results

Source: 2 759

Ambient: 190

Source: 1 010

Ambient: 70

Source: 395

Ambient: 27

N.D.

Chang et al.

2010

[43]

Particulate sampling

trains (TSP: High volume

sampler)

Size selective technique

(PM10 and PM2.5: High

volume sampler with

impactors)

TSP: 1h

PM10 and PM2.5:

3h

Gravel processing site in Taiwan. Process

similar to aggregate quarries

Crusher, conveyor, storage pile, haul

road, bare site ground

Site boundary , 10 m from the crusher

Site boundary:

818

Crusher: 550

Site boundary:

373

Site boundary:

140

Dry season (06-11):

12.9-21.8

Wet season (12-05):

9.3-12.3

Bluvshtein

et al. 2011

[16]

Particulate sampling

trains (High volume

sampler)

Deposition gauge (Marble

dust collector; MDCO

and wet collector for

comparison)

TSP; Summer

Jun-Sep

Deposition; May-

Oct

TSP: 24 h

Deposition: 30 d

Limestone aggregate quarry in Israel

Upwind (250 m and 2000 m), downwind

(1000 m) and eastern (750 m)

DW: 80-280

UW: 30-50

N.D. N.D. 05-08 DW: 7.9

05-08 UW: 2.1-2.4

05-08 East: 4.7

09-10 DW: 8.9

09-10 UW: 2.3-3.8

09-10 East: 7.4

Martinsson

2011

[53]

Deposition gauges

(ISO/DIS 4222.2)

30 d Two aggregate quarries in Sweden

(quarries A and D)

Downwind and at different directions

DW: 130-400 m

Different compass point around the

quarry: 10 m (90° and 180°) and 30 m

(270°)

Background: 2 km

N.D. N.D. N.D. A/90°: 2.14

A/180°: 2.75

A/270°: 116.15

A/10m: 2.14

A/200m: 1.68

A/300m: 3.27

D/130m: 1.86

D/390m: 0.86

D/400m: 0.92

Background: 0.5

Saha and

Padhy 2011

[50]

Particulate sampling train

(High volume sampler)

Deposit gauge

Summer

Rainy season

Winter

Ten times each

40 crushing units in aggregate quarry in

India

TSP Source: 20 m from crusher units

Sampling equipment were placed on roof

Source:

Summer: 3 490

Rainy: 2 530

Winter: 4 264

N.D. N.D. Source: 16 times of

control

Higher in the

summer than in the

5

season, 8 h/d tops of single storage buildings Background:

Summer: 167

Rainy: 137

Winter: 183

winter

Not measured at

rainy season.

Cattle et al.

2012

[54]

Deposition gauge

Size selective technique

(Coulter Multisize 3)

Sep/2007 –

Mar/2010

monthly

29-31 d,

wet weather 60 d

Gold mine, 12 quarrying sites in

Australia. Process similar to aggregate

quarries

2 m height

At different compass points at different

distances: Trajectories 1, 2 and 3

Background

G1: 700 m (source)

TR1: 2 000 m, 4 000 m and 9 000 m

TR2: 2 000 m, 4 000 m and 8 000 m

TR3: 3 200 m and 5 700 m (Different

compass point compared to TR1 and

TR2)

Background: 10 km

N.D. N.D. N.D. G1: 4.92

TR1/2000m: 2.55

TR1/4000m: 2.28

TR1/9000m: 1.8

TR2/2000m: 2.97

TR2/4000m: 2.73

TR2/8000m: 2.16

TR3/3200m: 2.13

TR3/5700m: 1.98

Background: 1.68

Bada et al.

2013

[42]

Continuous microbalance

instuments (PM10: TSI

Piezobalance respirable

Aerosol Mass Monitor)

Light scattering systems

(TSP: PPM 1005

Handheld Aerosol

Monitor; PM2.5: PDR-

1200)

Dec 2010

Three times 1 h

Granite quarry in Nigeria

Drilling, crushing, loading

Source: Near the selected quarry

operation

Ambient: 5000 m

Source: 3 545

Ambient: 498

Source: 231

Ambient: 30

Source: 130

Ambient: <10

N.D.

Degan et al.

2013

[44]

Particulate sampling train

(Pump Mod SKC

224PCEX8, aluminium

cyclone and PVC filter)

Light scattering system

(Sensidyne nephelometer)

Two sampling

campaigns:

May-Jun 2012

3×2 h

Jul 2012 5×2 h

Basalt quarry in Italy

Drilling, primary crushing, secondary

crushing, hauling

During the second sampling campaign

also loading

Source: Near the selected quarry

operation

1.5 m height

N.D. Source:

05-06/12:

Primary: 4 385

Secondary:

5 315

07/12:

Primary: 4 510

Secondary:

5 480

N.D. N.D.

Hauling

Reed 2003

[14]

Particulate sampling

trains (MSHA Escort ELF

personal sampler and

cyclone)

Light scattering systems

(RAM’s personal

sampler; PDR)

Year 2002

6-7h

2s interval in PDR

Aggregate (limestone) quarry in USA

Two adjacent lines downwind

Upwind

DW: 0 m, 15 m and 30 m

UW: 0 m

DW/0m: 2 970

DW/15m: 910

DW/30m: 570

UW: 1 080

DW/0m: 1 030

DW/15m: 270

DW/30m: 150

UW: 460

DW/0m: 250

DW/15m: 78

DW/30m: 58

UW: 87

PDR:

DW/0m: 220

N.D.

6

Size selective techniques

(cascade impactor)

DW/15m: 76

DW/30m: 52

UW: 120

Organiscak

and Reed

2004

[55]

Particulate sampling

trains (MSHA ELF

personal sampler and

cyclones BGI, Inc.

GK2.69 and Dorr-Oliver

10 mm nylon)

Light scattering systems

(Thermo-Anderson/MIE

Personal Data RAMs;

PDR)

Jul-Aug 2002

During 3 d shifts

for each operation

PDR: 2s

Aggregate (limestone) quarry in USA

Two adjacent lines downwind

Upwind

1.5 m height

DW: 0 m, 15 m and 30 m

UW: 0 m

DW/0m: 2 980*

DW/15m: 920*

DW/30m: 580*

UW: 1 090*

DW/0m: 1 030*

DW/15m: 270*

DW/30m: 160*

UW: 460*

DW/0m: 260*

DW/15m: 80*

DW/30m: 60*

UW: 90*

N.D.

Abu-

Allaban et

al. 2006

[56]

Light scattering systems

(DustTrak Aerosol

Monitor Model 8520)

5 400s

60s interval

Limestone quarry in Jordan

Downwind 2 m above a haul road

N.D. 630 N.D. N.D.

Docx et al.

2007

[57]

Deposit gauge

(Cylindrical adhesive pad

particulate sampler and

optical image analysis;

IA)

17 Aug 2005

11:30-15:30 local

time

3 periods of

sampling

Aggregate (limestone) quarry in UK

Adjacent line with three downwind and

three upwind samplers

1.5 m height

Distances: 3 m, 16 m and 29 m

DW/3m: 1 370*

DW/16m: 560*

DW/29m: 380*

UW/29m: 350*

N.D. N.D. N.D.

Chang et al.

2010

[43]

Particulate sampling

trains (TSP: High volume

sampler)

Size selective technique

(PM10 and PM2.5: High

volume sampler with

impactors)

TSP: 1h

PM10 and PM2.5:

3h

Gravel processing site in Taiwan.

Site boundary

Crusher, conveyor, storage pile, haul

road, bare site ground

10 m

Haul road:

1 560

Haul road:

1 130

N.D. N.D.

Degan et al.

2013

[44]

Particulate sampling train

(Pump Mod SKC

224PCEX8, aluminium

cyclone and PVC filter)

Light scattering system

(Sensidyne nephelometer)

Two sampling

campaigns:

May-Jun 2012

3×2 h

Jul 2012 5×2 h

Basalt quarry in Italy

Drilling, primary crushing, secondary

crushing, hauling

During the second sampling campaign

also loading

Source: Near the selected quarry

operation

1.5 m height

N.D. 05-06/12: 4 332

07/12: 4 265

N.D. N.D.

N.D. = Not detected

N.R = Not reported

DW = Downwind UW = Upwind

* = Concentrations were interpret / construed from the figures

1

Appendix B. Emission factors.

Author Settlement Source Unit Emission factor

TSP PM10 PM2.5

US EPA 2004b

[5]

Different processes in

several aggregate

quarries

EPA Method 201A

Tertiary crushing kg/tn 0.0027 0.0012 N.D.

Tertiary crushing – controlled kg/tn 0.0006 0.00027 0.00005

Fines crushing kg/tn 0.0195 0.0075 N.D.

Fines crushing - controlled kg/tn 0.0015 0.0006 0.000035

Screening kg/tn 0.0125 0.0043 N.D.

Screening - controlled kg/tn 0.0011 0.00037 0.000025

Fines screening kg/tn 0.15 0.036 N.D.

Fines screening- controlled kg/tn 0.0018 0.0011 N.D.

Conveyor transfer point kg/tn 0.0015 0.00055 N.D.

Conveyor transfer point-

controlled

kg/tn 0.00007 2.3x10-5 6.5x10-6

Wet drilling (unfragmented stone) kg/tn N.D. 4.0x10-5 N.D.

Truck loading (fragmented stone) kg/tn N.D. 8.0x10-6 N.D.

Truck loading (crushed stone) kg/tn N.D. 5.0x10-5 N.D.

Chang et al.

2010

[43]

Crushing gravel in

Taiwan

Particulate sampling

trains (TSP: High

volume sampler)

Size selective

technique (PM10 and

PM2.5: High volume

sampler with

impactors)

Loading/ unloading gravel kg/tn 0.74 0.48 0.23

Loading/ unloading crushed

material

kg/tn 0.85 0.56 0.35

Bare ground kg/tn 0.095 0.066 0.034

Unpaved roads kg/tn 1.18 0.71 0.32

Aatos 2003

[6]

Drilling at natural

stone quarry in

Finland

Particulate sampling

trains (PM10:

Graseby- Andersen

PM10 collector)

Size selective

technique (PM2.5: EPA

PM2.5- impactor)

Overall quarry g/s N.D. 0.213 –

0.504

0.035 –

0.153

Chackraborty et

al. 2002

[59]

Crushing at aggregate

quarries in India

(three iron ore mines)

US EPA Method

Particulate sampling

trains (High volume

sampler)

Drilling* g/s 0.3433 N.D. N.D.

Loading overburden or mineral* g/s 0.1963 -

0.3317

N.D. N.D.

Unloading overburden or

mineral*

g/s 0.5036 -

0.7651

N.D. N.D.

Overall quarry* g/s 4.4688 -

5.1496

N.D. N.D.

N.D. = Not detected

* Emission factor was represented as equation. Emission factor was calculated with average values of equation

variables. Variables in the equation were moisture, silt content and wind speed.